Agenda item

31 Westmead Road, Gloucester - 23/00082/FUL

Application for determination:

 

Change of use from C3 (dwelling house) to C2 (residential institution) for up to four children living together and receiving care and two permanent carers, all living together as a single household.

Minutes:

Councillor Sawyer withdrew herself from the room during the discussion and voting on the item, owing to having declared a prejudicial interest.

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented a report detailing an application for a change of use from C3 (dwelling house) to C2 (residential institution) for up to four children living together and receiving care and two permanent carers, all living together as a single household.

 

Councillor Castle addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.

 

She stated that the application should be rejected on the following grounds:

 

-         Inappropriate location.

-        The application was unsuitable for the intended occupiers. There was a small back garden which was overlooked by neighbouring properties. This was not suitable for vulnerable children.

-         Contradicted policy SD14 of the Development Plan as the environmental quality was not suitable for the type of property proposed.

-         Children from outside of Gloucester may be housed at the dwelling.

-         The granting of the application would lead to excessive noise and disturbance to nearby residents.

-        The language surrounding the issue of visitors was not robust enough. The report stated that visits would ‘normally’ be in the daytime. This meant that there could be night-time visits and additional noise disruption.

-        The site visit that had been conducted was inadequate.

-          Not enough information had been provided about the users of the home and the complexity of their needs, especially considering that the children housed would be at the property for 24 hours a day.

-          Parking concerns.

-          The Noise Assessment conducted was not adequate. 

-         The application was not a ‘tick box’ application. The granting of it would have a real detrimental impact on the lives of both the users of the site and neighbouring properties.

 

 

A local resident addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.

 

He stated that the application should be rejected on the following grounds:

 

-         The requirement for properties such as the one proposed should not be at the expense of the wellbeing of neighbours.

-        The application was not for a family home as paragraph 6.16 suggested. There would be 4 children and 10 staff on rotation. This was 14 people in total, not including visitors.

-        Carers would have to sleep in an office downstairs, evidencing that it was not a standard family home as stated.

-          There would be a significant increase in noise, which would have a detrimental impact of the amenity of neighbouring properties.

-          The size of the garden was too small for the number of people who would occupy the dwelling.

-         The back garden had not been accessed during the site visit, so the application had not been fully assessed.

-         The noise assessment by the Housing Strategy Team was inadequate.      

-         Inadequate amenity space.

 

The owner of Platform Childcare spoke in favour of the application.

 

He stated that the application should be granted for the following reasons:

 

-          Platform Childcare was a well-established provider.

-          There was a national shortage of Foster Family homes.

-          Platform Childcare was a hands-on provider.

-          He appreciated concerns raised members of the local community, but it would not be significantly different to other properties within the area.

-          An additional parking bay would be added. Therefore, there would be three parking spaces.

-         None of the properties Platform Childcare owned had ever had a noise restriction put on them.

-         The vast majority of appointments would be in the daytime.

-         Platform Childcare had worked closely with the local authorities.

-         The property would be well regulated.

-         Inspectors would visit the property twice a year.

 

 

 

Members’ Questions

 

The Senior Planning Officer responded to members’ questions concerning the nature of the consultation, whether there was a family room downstairs, how the conclusions in the noise assessment had been reached, what course of action residents could take if there was an increase in noise and anti-social behaviour, the age of the children who would occupy the dwelling, flooding, whether the children would have a separate room each, whether the staff would be trained, if there had been adaptations made for disabled persons, if there was a downstairs lavatory and the nature of appointments as follows:

 

-         Properties that shared a boundary with the application site would have received a letter. The site notice on a lamppost allowed for properties further afield to be notified of the application.

-         There would be a large family room downstairs. A smaller room would be converted and used as a staff office and as a staff sleeping area.

-         The back garden was accessed during the site visit. The Noise Assessment was based on the numbers of residents that would occupy the dwelling.

-         If there was excessive noise caused after the occupants moved into the dwelling, neighbours could contact Environmental Health to investigate.

-         The children would be aged between 5 and 17 years old.

-         The application was for a change of use, so flood risk was not a material planning consideration.

-          There would be a separate room for each child.

-          All staff would have received safeguarding training.

-         Children’s and Families Commissioners had thoroughly checked the background of the care provider (Platform Childcare Ltd)

-          No adaptations for disability access had been made.

-          The property had a downstairs lavatory.

-          All appointments would be available by booking only.

 

 

The Highways Officer responded to members’ questions concerning parking spaces as follows:

 

-         There were drop curbs on the site. From a trip generation point of view, the change of use would not change the number or nature of the trips taken significantly. There would be residential parking overnight by the two members of the staff and some short stay parking during shift changes.

 

The Locum Planning Lawyer responded to members’ questions concerning what would happen if there was a covenant on the estate restricting the property to residential use and the recourse local residents had if there was excessive noise as follows:

 

-        Only someone with the benefit of a covenant could take action. It was not a material planning consideration.

-         Future noise complaints fell outside the remit of Planning. Every business should be aware that residents could make a complaint to Environmental Health if there was significant noise pollution.

 

Members’ Debate

 

The Vice-Chair stated that it was a complex application. He noted that he had no issue with the Care Home Provider. However, he stated that he had concerns that it was not a normal family residence and had apprehensions regarding the dwelling’s proximity to neighbouring and overlooking properties. He said that it was the wrong location for the application and raised concerns that granting it would set a precedent.

 

Councillor Wilson stated that he broadly agreed with the Vice-Chair’s assessment. He stated that the estate where the house would be situated was designed specifically for family homes, not care homes. He stated that he believed the comments surrounding the noise assessment were also too subjective and that it was located too close to neighbouring properties. He said that he would vote against the officer recommendation.

 

Councillor Conder stated that she believed that the application proposed to house too many children and staff members for the size of the property. She said that she did not agree with the proposal for staff to sleep in an office. She stated that there had been a couple of similar builds in her ward and the noise levels were dependent on the children and the staff who occupied it.

 

Councillor Tracey said that she had concerns that the granting of the application would cause excessive noise pollution to residents.

 

The Chair stated that he had concerns about the application. He said that he understood the issues residents and local ward members had with the application and that there was a lot more potential for noise disruption. He said that he also understood that there was a lack of appropriate children’s homes in Gloucestershire.

 

Councillor Finnegan highlighted her belief that the site was inappropriately located for vulnerable children and that they needed to be the priority.

 

Councillor Toleman said that he believed that members needed to be careful not to depart from Planning Policy.

 

Councillor Tracey stated that she believed that the users of the site would need to be in a family environment, and that the proposed application was not a regular family dwelling.

 

The Vice-Chair proposed, and Councillor Finnegan seconded a motion to refuse the application on the grounds that the change of use would contradict Policy A5 of The Gloucester City Plan as it would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties owing to excessive noise and disturbance it would cause. 

 

Before a vote was taken, the Planning Development Manager was invited to comment by the Chair as is set out in paragraph B23 of the Planning and Development Code of Practice in the Council’s Constitution, as the vote was to go against the Officer recommendation. He clarified that the vote to go against the Officer recommendation based on the detrimental impact it would have on the amenity of neighbouring properties needed to be specific to a policy (i.e detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity owing to excessive noise, which contradicted policy A5 of the City Plan). Once the Planning Development Manager had commented, the motion was put to a vote.

 

RESOLVED that: - the application is refused as the proposed change of use is not considered to be acceptable in principle as the resulting accommodation would not provide the required accommodation in an appropriate location contrary to policy A5 of the Gloucester City Plan. The application site is located in a residential area with limited outside amenity space in close proximity to other neighbouring properties and it is considered that the proposed change of use would be detrimental to the amenity of the occupants of the neighbouring properties by way of noise and disturbance contrary to policy SD14 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy (2017) and policy A5 of the Gloucester City Plan (2023).

 

Supporting documents: